West Virginia Democrat. [volume] (Charles Town, W. Va.) 1885-1890, 1887-08-05
DIscussIoN OF PROHIBITION.


The He7ald'S article is on the first
page. The printers were waiting for
copy" before the writer was informed
thar this editorial was expected for the
present issue, and consequently il must
be dictated with undue haste.
Discussion is impossible unless
the disputants agree about fnnda-
mental principles. We cannot argue
theology with a man who denies the
existence of God. So here, the Her
ald plants itself on the proposition
that Government may require cit
izen to adopt such private habits as
the majority think best for his per-
sonal welfare: We, on the other
hand, say that Government must not
restrain the personal conduct of a
citizen except where necessary to
prevent him from infringing on the
rights of another citizen. Govern
ment is not established to protect a
man against himself, but to protect
him against others. The ciIcumstan-
ce that majority have the physical
power to enforce obedience, does not
measure the sphere of legitimate ac-
ton by Government. The physical
power of Il majority is one thing. the
rights of that majority is another
thing. The personal rights of an in
dividual are as sacred as the rights
of a majority. A majority have the
physical power to kill persons who
differ from them in religious creed /;
but the question is, whether our Gov
eminent shall act on the theory that
an individual has no right which the
majority is bound to respect. The
majority cried out to cruelty Christ;
but his crucifXion was not right.
We again repeat, that the sole func-
ton of Government is to prevent one
man from invading the rights OF an
other man. When law is proposed,
the first question is, whether the
proposed law is proper exercise of
governmental power. If the law be
necessary to protect right from in
vasion, then it is proper exercise
of governmental power; but if its
purpose is, not to protect any right,
but to protect an individual against
his own conduct, then the proposed
law Is outside Of legitimate govern
mental action. My right to enjoy
my personal liberty, according toour
present Government, does not de-
pend on what q majority may think
best for my health or spiritual well
fare: it depends only on whether l
am invading the rights of another
man. Ii the editor If the Herald
cannot grasp this conception of Gov
eminent, then he is so blinded by
fanaticism that he'cannot compre-
bend what is meant by the phrase
personal liberty.
Ia stating the proposition, which
is the corner stone of free institu-
tions, we used the language of Mr..
Jefferson. and Mr. Jefferson had cop
led from Locke This proposition
which jefferson and Locke have de-
clared the basis of personal liberty,
the HerGd cOnfounds with, and mis-
takes for, the Anarchy OF Herr Most.
Surely, comment is unnecessary.
But is it not well for thoughtful men
to consider the fact that the Prohi-
bitiou leaders are so blinded by IA
naticism that they cannot see the
difference between Anarchy, and
that principle which Locke and JEFF
ferson laid down as the corner stone
of free Government.
Prohibition stripped of words is
simply this: the PrOhibitionists say,
1--WE think that you would do bet
ter If YOU did not drink; therefore,
we, (your rulers, command you not
to drink" They dare not say this
in direct words, because every man.
not blinded by fanaticism, would re-
bel. They dare not say this in di-
rect words, because every level. head
ell man would Immediately see that
they propose to destroy the very
cornerstone of personal liberty. But
it is obvious, the proposed Amend
ment is designed to accomplish this
and nothing else. The Prohibition
leaders would set themselves up to
be the Judges Of the private habits
of their neighbors, and the individ-
ual is to conform his personal con-
duct to any standard a majority may
set up. In other words, they pro-
pose to dictate the personal conduct
OF their neighbors precisely as pa